/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241213.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 250
Headlines
ADAPTIVE HOME: Potter Seeks Home Health Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Sherman Action on Inactive Status,
AMAZON INC: Rittmann Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
AMAZON RETAIL: Talbert Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Romero Files Suit in S.D. California
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
AMPLITUDE INC: Willey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
APPLE INC: Antitrust Suit Can Proceed as Second Objection Rejected
ARTHUR W. HENEGAR: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Starling Claims
ASCENDTEK LLC: Morris Suit Seek Conditional Class Certification
BARCLAYS PLC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Red-Light Ticket Program
BIMBO BAKERIES: Salas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Bunget Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Ruiz-Jacobs Sues Over Data Breach
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Starnes Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
BROOKLYN CHARM: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Faces Perez Suit Over False Reference Prices
BUILD-A-BEAR: Perez Sues Over False and Misleading Discount
BUMBLE AND BUMBLE: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Fact Discovery in Delvalle Due June 27, 2025
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
DANIELA DIAMONDS: Picon Sues Over Blind Users' Access to Website
DR. RAKESH GUPTA: Rodriguez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Daly Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hines' Proposed Class Notice Partly OK'd
FRANKCRUM INC: Springer Sues Over Intentional Work Interference
GANNETT CO: Deddeh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milstead Due Dec. 12, 2025
GIFTROCKET INC: GBL Must Identify Alleged Damages, Court Says
GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 12, 2025
GOLDEN STATE FC: Bid to Reopen Discovery in Trevino Partly OK'd
GOOGLE INC: Bid for Clarification of Class Definition Tossed
GUARD FORCE: Carey Conditional Class Certification Partly OK'd
HUGO BOSS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HYDRO EXTRUSION: Creasey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
JT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS: Ellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KALAMATA LLC: Dardompre Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MATHESON TRI-GAS: Smelser Suit Seeks Operators' Unpaid Overtime
MATTEL INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wicked Doll Packaging
MERCK SHARP: Escobedo Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Order Entered in UPOA Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in JSM Gets Initial Nod
PARTS AUTHORITY: Conditional Collective Cert Due March 14, 2025
PORTS OF SEATTLE: Bid to Dismiss Emissions Class Suit Denied
RING CONCIERGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Agostini Claims
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for March 4
SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Comply With COPPA
TYSON FOODS: McBride Seeks to Certify Collective
UNITED 1ST: Ownby Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
UNITED NETWORK: Randall Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
UNITED STATES: Cortez Class Cert Response Extended to March 3, 2025
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Docs Sealed
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favel Seeks Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Zarnowski Seeks Class Status
US BANCORP: Seeks to Disregard Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Berger, Varnell Appointed as Class Counsel
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Sept. 5, 2025
VISION SERVICE: Discloses Users' Info to 3rd Parties, Tendick Says
WALMART INC: Palazzi Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: De Beers PLC Faces Major Asbestos Lawsuit
*********
ADAPTIVE HOME: Potter Seeks Home Health Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY POTTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTIVE HOME HEALTH, LLC and SUSAN RHODES
ENTERPRISES, LLC (a/k/a HOME HEALTH SPECIALISTS), Defendants, Case
No. 4:24-cv-01074-ALM (E.D. Tex., December 5, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a home health nurse from
on or about July 3, 2023, until approximately August 5, 2024.
Adaptive Home Health, LLC is a home health care services provider
with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
Susan Rhodes Enterprises, LLC, also known as Home Health
Specialists, is a home health care services provider with its
principal place of business in Kingwood, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc. d/b/a AST
Manufacturing, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting motion for leave to file under seal, for a
temporary period of 14 days or until any motion to seal filed by
the Defendant is resolved, the following:
(1) A narrowly tailored portion of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law
in
Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and
(2) Exhibits 1, 3, 4-13, 15-29, and 31-36 cited therein.
The Defendant does not oppose this request. The Plaintiff requests
that the aforementioned documents be filed under seal for the
reasons set forth in Plaintiff's accompanying memorandum of law in
support of its unopposed motion to seal documents relating to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bHRzfo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
Jessica C. Colombo, Esq.
Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
mjasinski@motleyrice.com
jcolombo@motleyrice.com
mquirk@motleyrice.com
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc. d/b/a AST
Manufacturing, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
(1) certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
on
behalf of a Class consisting of:
"all individuals and entities in the United States who were
charged Product Surcharges by Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc.
between June 1, 2018 and Aug. 31, 2020";
(2) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
(3) approving Plaintiff's selection of Motley Rice LLC as Class
Counsel.
Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UWolvU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
Jessica C. Colombo, Esq.
Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
mjasinski@motleyrice.com
jcolombo@motleyrice.com
mquirk@motleyrice.com
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Sherman Action on Inactive Status,
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Sherman, et
al., v. Albertson's LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06377-ODW-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order placing
the Sherman action on inactive status in light of the parties'
Joint Notice of Settlement, indicating that the case has settled in
its entirety as to Plaintiffs' individual and PAGA claims, and
considering the Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
-- By Jan. 6, 2025, the parties shall file a dismissal that
complies
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
-- Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice as to all claims.
-- All other dates and deadlines in this action are vacated and
taken
off calendar.
Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ukIta at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON INC: Rittmann Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification as to:
"All individuals who worked as Amazon Flex delivery drivers on
or
after Oct. 27, 2013, who are not already represented by counsel
on
misclassification and related wage and overtime claims."
The statute of limitations for claims by individuals within the
conditional collective is tolled from Oct. 27, 2013, through the
date that notice is sent by the third-party administrator.
Additionally, the Court orders that:
(1) The parties shall meet and confer as to the content of the
notice and submit to the Court within 60 days of this Order
proposed forms of (a) notice by mail, (b) notice by e-mail,
(c)
a reminder, and (d) opt-in consent;
(2) Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs within 14 days of
this
order the information identified in Part II.C.3 of this
Order
for all members of the collective that fit the definition
provided by the Court;
(3) The opt-in period shall be 90 days and a reminder shall be
sent
after 45 days; and
(4) A third party is authorized to administer the notice by mail
and e-mail. The parties shall meet and confer on their
selection of an administrator within 60 days of this Order.
The Court finds Plaintiffs' arguments more persuasive, given the
lenient standard for conditional FLSA certification.
The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of Amazon
last-mile delivery drivers. They allege that the Defendants
misclassified them as independent contractors and owe them unpaid
wages and expenses.
Amazon is an online retailer and technology provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BJJOb0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON RETAIL: Talbert Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rita Talbert, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AMAZON
RETAIL LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0053875 was removed from the Placer County
Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 5, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Amazon Retail: Unfair Competition; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal
Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse
Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Pay Wages When Due; and
(9) Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: lblas@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
jpearigen@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
Phone: 415.393.8277
Facsimile: 415.374.8422
Email: jrose@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Romero Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Mayra Romero, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-02273-H-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Action for Unfair,
Discriminatory, Deceptive Practice/Marketing.
Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon, is an American
multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Rose Pfeiff, Esq.
Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
Spencer L. Pfeiff, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (866) 219-3343
Email: jessica@swigartlawgroup.com
josh@swigartlawgroup.com
spencer@swigartlawgroup.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jessica Clark, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
CIVVS2401181 was removed from the Superior Court of California, San
Bernardino County, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Dec. 5, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-02586.
The Plaintiff alleges five causes of action against Amazon: failure
to pay wages, including overtime, under Labor Code; failure to
provide meal periods under Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; failure
to provide rest periods under Labor Code; failure to provide
accurate wage statements under Labor Code; and violation of
Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
Natalie Dygert, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
ndygert@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 5-STAR GENERAL STORE aka
BENTO LLC, MARC ALLEN, INC., FAST FORWARD MEDIA, INC., MEZE LLC,
KENNEDY'S IRISH PUB INC., CARDEN, INC., FRENCH FLORIST, LLC, LUXE
FURNITURE, INC., LUNA'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, and THE GENT'S
PLACE MEN’S FINE GROOMING LLC on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN
EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES CO. INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00106-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary McElroy entered
an order denying Amex's motion to compel arbitration and motion to
strike class allegations.
Because the Court finds that Amex is in default, its Motion to
compel arbitration is denied.
Amex has not shown that the request for declaratory relief
under Rule 23(c)(4) must—at this early point in the
litigation—be taken off the table. The Court thus will not strike
it from the Complaint.
These motions revolve around an ironic dilemma: a credit card
company not paying its bills. After the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") found that American Express ("Amex") owed more
than $17,000,000 in filing fees related to arbitrations with 5-Star
General Store and 5,154 other merchants ("Merchants"), Amex refused
to pay. The AAA then "administratively closed" the case, and the
Merchants filed suit in this Court, McElroy says.
5-Star General Store is a convenience store on Main Street in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island. It accepts all major credit cards,
including American Express.
American Express is an American bank holding company and
multinational financial services corporation that specializes in
payment cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xWU211 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPLITUDE INC: Willey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amplitude, Inc. The
case is styled as Sean Willey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. CGC24620336
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 5, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Amplitude -- https://amplitude.com/ -- is a leading digital
analytics platform that helps companies unlock the power of their
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
APPLE INC: Antitrust Suit Can Proceed as Second Objection Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lovejoy, writing for 9TO5MAC, reports that British developers
have been told that their billion dollar class action lawsuit
against Apple can proceed, after the iPhone maker failed in its
second bid to have the case dismissed.
Developers behind the antitrust case are seeking repayment of up to
GBP785M ($995M) in commission on apps, in the latest move against
Apple's monopoly on the sale of iPhone apps . . .
Follows antitrust cases in the EU and US
The core argument here is that, until recently, the only way a
developer could sell an iPhone app was through the official App
Store. This gave Apple monopolistic powers over the same of iOS
apps, and allowed the company to set its own commission levels
which developers were forced to accept.
The most dramatic change happened in the EU, where the Digital
Markets Act required Apple to allow iPhone and iPad apps to be sold
through third-party app stores. Apple did its best to make this
option as unattractive as possible for developers in what has been
described as an act of malicious compliance, and it's likely that
it will be forced to change its terms, but the law did at least
mean that the principle was established.
In the US, Apple suffered a smaller loss, when a case brought by
Epic Games resulted in the company being told that it must allow
developers to link to alternative ways of purchasing in-app
content. The company again complied in a way that would protect its
commissions, and the judge in this case has indicated that Apple is
likely to be found in breach of her ruling.
Class action lawsuit against Apple will proceed
A class action lawsuit was last year filed against Apple in the UK
on behalf of 1,566 British app developers, also arguing that
Apple's monopoly on iPhone apps forced them to accept unreasonable
levels of commission. The suit has since been extended to
representing some 13,000 developers.
Apple twice attempted to block the lawsuit. The first attempt asked
the judge to dismiss the case on the basis that a British court
should not have jurisdiction on commissions charged on app sales
made outside the UK. That argument was rejected earlier this year.
The Cupertino company subsequently took the matter to the UK's
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), asking it to block the case.
Bloomberg reports that the CAT has now rejected this request.
The iPhone maker could be on the hook for repaying as much as
GBP785 million in fees to as many as 13,000 developers, according
to UK competition policy professor Sean Ennis, who's leading the
claim. Judges at the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal paved the way
for the suit to continue after dismissing the US firm's arguments
to block the case.
Ennis is well placed to make the case, having previously held
positions in both the European Commission and US Department of
Justice. [GN]
ARTHUR W. HENEGAR: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Starling Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY STARLING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARTHUR W. HENEGAR DDS, MS, P.A. d/b/a
HENEGAR DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03043-S (N.D. Tex.,
December 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas law.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
telemarketing text messages to individuals on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry that do not have an established business
relationship with it and who did not consent to receive its
telemarketing text messages. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
suffered a nuisance and invasion of their privacy, says the suit.
Arthur W. Henegar DDS, MS, PA, doing business as Henegar Dental, is
a professional association doing business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
ASCENDTEK LLC: Morris Suit Seek Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MORRIS,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ASCENDTEK, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00565-KKE
(W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
court-authorized notice.
The Plaintiff alleges that AscendTek violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by:
(1) failing to pay him and others similarly situated for all
hours
Worked, and
(2) failing to pay overtime at the proper premium rate.
Morris requests the Court grant conditional certification and
authorize notice to be sent (via mail, email, and text message),
to:
"All hourly, non-exempt AscendTek employees who were subject to
AscendTek's (1) jobsite pay scheme and/or (2) per diem pay
scheme
at any time during the past 3 years (the "Hourly Employees").
To facilitate notice, Morris requests the Court (1) approve the
Notice and Consent forms attached to Plaintiff’s Motion as
Exhibit
4; (2) approve the email and text message scripts attached to
Plaintiff’s Motion as Exhibit 5; (3) order AscendTek to
produce to
Class Counsel the contact information for each Hourly Employee
within 10 days; (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the
Hourly
Employees to join this case; (5) authorize an identical reminder
notice halfway through the notice period; and (6) allow the
Notice
and Consent forms, and identical reminders, to be sent via mail,
email, and text.
Morris' evidence more than meets the Ninth Circuit's lenient
standard for conditional certification by showing Morris and the
Hourly Employees were subject to the same pay practices and
policies. Thus, the Court should conditionally certify the FLSA
Class and authorize notice to be sent to the FLSA Class Members
AscendTek is a telecommunications company that builds, upgrades,
and maintains cell towers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rp9T3D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 624-6411
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Barclays PLC Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08172-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine
Polk Failla entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement, approving form and manner of notice, and setting
date for hearing on final approval of settlement:
The Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of the Settlement
only, the Settlement Class of:
"all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Barclays PLC
during
the period from Feb. 18, 2021 through Feb. 14, 2023, both dates
inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and
former
defendants in the Action; (ii) members of the immediate family
of
any Defendant or former defendant who is an individual; (iii)
any
person who was an officer, director, and/or control person of
Barclays during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust,
corporation, or other entity in which any excluded person or
entity has or had a controlling interest and/or beneficial
interest; and (v) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs,
successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person
or
entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing exclusions, no Investment
Vehicle shall be excluded from the Settlement Class.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons who
or
which timely and validly seek exclusion from the Settlement
Class
in accordance with the requirements set forth below and in the
Notice.
The Court finds and preliminarily concludes that the prerequisites
of class action certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures have been satisfied for the
Settlement Class defined herein and for the purposes of the
Settlement only.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for purposes of the Settlement only, Boston Retirement System is
preliminarily certified as Class Representative for the Settlement
Class. The law firm of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP is preliminarily
appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Barclays is a global financial services provider engaged in retail
banking, credit cards, wholesale banking, investment banking, and
wealth management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OsRBed at no extra
charge.[CC]
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Red-Light Ticket Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bess Casserleigh, writing for WBRZ2, reports that a six-year-old
civil suit against the City of Baton Rouge for its red-light ticket
program has received the green light to move forward.
If the suit goes the way similar litigation in the state has, Baton
Rouge could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars. New
Orleans attorney Joe McMahon is representing the plaintiffs suing
the city.
"These camera companies come in, they pitch a bill to a councilman
and other government reps and say 'Hey, we have this great
program,' and say it's all about public safety but you'll make a
lot of money," McMahon said.
The lawsuit's basis is technical, but it has been successful in
both Orleans and Jefferson parishes, garnering judgments in the
tens of millions of dollars.
"When this program was started, the ordinance that established it
put the program under the control of the Department of Public
Works. Well, this violates the home rule charter for East Baton
Rouge, because the home rule charter says traffic is a police
function."
The lawsuit, filed in 2018, was officially certified Monday by
Judge Kelly Balfour.
"What that means is that we are allowed to bring this case on
behalf of everyone who has received and paid a red light ticket in
EBR Parish."
In the Orleans case, a judge ordered the parish to pay back nearly
$26 million in tickets. McMahon says, with interest, that's gone up
to over $55 million. So far the parish has paid nothing.
"We are on their list of judgments to be paid. It takes a long time
for the City of New Orleans to pay their judgments."
The program in Baton Rouge began in 2007.
"There are probably at least 250,000 tickets that have been issued.
The last numbers we have received were from 2021 and showed
collections just shy of $40 million."
Since then, there's been about an additional $10 million in tickets
paid, putting the total around $50 million. If the City-Parish is
ordered to pay that money back, it could have devastating
consequences, especially given the already reduced budget due to
St. George.
"That's an issue that we will have to deal with down the road."
While McMahon considers the tickets illegal, his advice about
whether you should pay yours isn't as clear cut.
"That's a difficult question. As our case is pending and ongoing, I
think I know what our result will be, but I think everybody has to
make that decision based on their own risk tolerance."
Though there are late fees associated with not paying, McMahon says
he's never known anyone to go to jail or get in any legal trouble
for not paying them. However, there have been instances in some
cities where the cars of owners who have not paid have been
booted.
As far as the next step in this lawsuit, they expect the
City-Parish to file an appeal.
McMahon says he will potentially bring a separate class action suit
in Baton Rouge against the school board for its use of ticket
cameras on school buses and is looking for people who have received
one. [GN]
BIMBO BAKERIES: Salas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MOISES SALAS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV24659, was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on December 4, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-10430 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to
provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
pay timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and
unfair business practices.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is a bakery company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
George S. Benjamin, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Bunget Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bunget, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00695-FL
(E.D.N.C., Dec. 4, 2024), is brought to redress Defendant's
unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal
identifiable information of possibly thousands of individuals that
was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's network in
violation of its legal obligations.
In carrying out its business, Defendant obtains, collects, uses,
and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As
such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those
individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion.
On March 12, 2024, Bojangles detected suspicious activity on its
computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent
forensic investigation, Bojangles determined that cybercriminals
infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and
thereby gained access to its data files between February 19, 2024
through March 12, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The investigation
further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminal
accessed and copied files containing the sensitive personal
information of tens of thousands of individuals.
The personally identifiable information ("PII") accessed by
cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, financial account
information, credit and debit card numbers, medical information and
health insurance information (collectively, "Personal Information"
or "PII"). Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained
everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals.
The Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class
Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII and
thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and
sensitive information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Bojangles.
Bojangles is a Southern-inspired fast-food chain known for fried
chicken & biscuits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5003
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
212 W. Spring Valley Road
Email: Richardson, TX 75081
wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Ruiz-Jacobs Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a North Carolina
Bojangles customer is suing the company.
Why: The plaintiff says the company's negligence led to its
customers' data being leaked in a cyberattack.
Where: The Bojangles class action was filed in a North Carolina
federal court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Bojangles -- the
Southern-inspired fast-food chain known for its fried chicken and
biscuits -- of failing to protect sensitive customer information
during a data breach earlier this year.
Plaintiff Jessie Ruiz-Jacobs filed the class action complaint
against Bojangles' Restaurants Inc. on Nov. 25 in a North Carolina
federal court alleging negligence.
The lawsuit alleges that Bojangles' negligence allowed
cybercriminals to access and steal personal information, including
Social Security numbers, driver's license details, financial
account data and even medical and health insurance information.
Plaintiff alleges Bojangles data breach was preventable
According to the lawsuit, hackers infiltrated Bojangles' computer
systems between Feb. 19 and March 12. The company discovered the
suspicious activity on March 12, but by then, tens of thousands of
individuals' data had already been compromised, the class action
states.
Ruiz-Jacobs claims the breach resulted from Bojangles' failure to
implement reasonable cybersecurity measures and promptly detect the
intrusion.
The stolen data, described as "everything needed to commit personal
identity theft," could have long-term impacts on victims' financial
and personal lives, she says, adding that Bojangles customers have
already suffered damages, including lost time and money spent
addressing the breach's fallout.
According to the lawsuit, more than 32,000 South Carolina residents
reportedly received notifications about their data being exposed.
Victims now face the ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud,
which could persist for decades, the lawsuit alleges.
As a result, Ruiz-Jacobs is looking to represent a nationwide class
of consumers whose data was compromised in the Bojangles data
breach.
She's seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs, a jury trial and injunctive relief forcing Bojangles to
implement improved data security practices.
Meanwhile, in November, Amazon confirmed that employee data
allegedly compromised during the May 2023 MOVEit file transfer
system data breach had been leaked on a hacking forum.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott C. Harris, David K. Lietz and
Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.
The Bojangles class action is Jessie Ruiz-Jacobs v. Bojangles'
Restaurants Inc, Case No. 5:24-cv-00668-M in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. [GN]
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Starnes Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bojangles'
Restaurants, Inc. The case is styled as Christie Starnes,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00691-D-RN
(E.D.N.C., Dec. 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Bojangles -- https://www.bojangles.com/ -- is an American regional
chain of fast food restaurants that specializes in Cajun-seasoned
fried chicken and buttermilk biscuits and primarily serves the
Southeastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
BROOKLYN CHARM: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Brooklyn Charm, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09258 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.brooklyncharm.com (hereinafter "Brooklyncharm.com" or
"the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Brooklyncharm.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Stance's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Brooklyn Charm provides to the public a website known as
Brooklyncharm.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range
of jewelry, including bracelets, earrings, necklaces, rings, and
custom pieces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-4715
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Faces Perez Suit Over False Reference Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-10469 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising
Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising false
reference prices for merchandise sold on its stores. According to
the complaint, the Defendant tricks consumers into thinking they
are getting a great deal at the "sale" price, when in fact, they
are paying the same amount or even more than the usual price of the
item. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory and injunctive relief from the Defendant arising from
its false reference and discount pricing.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is a retail company headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
700 Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
BUILD-A-BEAR: Perez Sues Over False and Misleading Discount
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02268-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought under
the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), seeking to
hold Build-A-Bear accountable for its unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful policy of displaying false or misleading discount or
"sale" prices.
With the sheer volume of online products being offered, consumers
rely on accurate pricing to make informed decisions. Unfortunately,
many retailers engage in deceptive and misleading practices by
advertising products as "sales" or "markdowns" by showing
significantly inflated "reference prices" or "regular prices" that
are rarely, if ever, actually charged.
Build-A-Bear has engaged in just such a deceptive pricing scheme.
Build-A-Bear advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts on
many of its products, supposedly offering discounts of up to 50%
off Build A-Bear's self-created, fictitious reference prices.
Build-A-Bear represents to consumers that its reference price is
the "regular" or "normal" price of the item, which functions as a
new and inflated reference point from which consumers discount
their "savings" on various products.
Build-A-Bear's reference prices are false because Build-A-Bear
rarely, if ever, offers the products for the reference price.
Instead, the inflated reference prices allow Build-A-Bear to
continually advertise "sale" events and product discounts in order
to induce consumers into purchasing products. In reality, the
"sale" price is the price at which Build-A-Bear regularly sells the
product, but the consumer has been tricked into thinking she found
a great discount.
Build-A-Bear's practice of falsely inflating reference prices in
order to give the illusion of higher value, bigger discounts, and a
false sense of time pressure, constitutes false advertising, and is
an unfair and deceptive practice under the CLRA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff saw the false discount representations on
Build-A-Bear's website.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
corporate offices located in Saint Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
700 Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
BUMBLE AND BUMBLE: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble and Bumble, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12429
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services
Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://bumbleandbumble.com (hereinafter "Bumbleandbumble.com" or
"the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Bumbleandbumble.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Bumble and Bumble's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Bumble and Bumble provides to the public a website known as
Bumbleandbumble.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide
range of hair care products, including shampoos, conditioners,
creams, oils, sprays, primers, pomades, gels, and masks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Fact Discovery in Delvalle Due June 27, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DELVALLE and
KYMBERLEA DURANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-06163-VEC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order:
1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings
before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions
and
trial. 28 U.S.C. section 636(c).
2. Except for amendments permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)
and
this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases ("Individual
Practices"), amended pleadings may not be filed and
additional
may not be joined except with leave of the Court.
3. Fact discovery must be substantially completed by June 27,
2025.
The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Friday, June 27,
2025, at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007.
The Court will not enter a briefing schedule for the anticipated
motion for class certification until after the June 27, 2025,
conference.
Coca-Cola is an American multinational corporation founded in
1892.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yr8ODQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Customers
Bancorp, Inc. ("Customers Bancorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: CUBI).
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about Customers Bancorp's business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that: (1) Customers Bancorp had
inadequate anti-money laundering practices; and (2) as a result, it
was not in compliance with its legal obligations, which subjected
it to heightened regulatory risk.
If you bought shares of Customers Bancorp between March 1, 2024 and
August 8, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by
toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/customers-bancorp/ to learn
more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is January 31, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
DANIELA DIAMONDS: Picon Sues Over Blind Users' Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANIELA DIAMONDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09263 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.danieladiamonds.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Daniela Diamonds, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
DR. RAKESH GUPTA: Rodriguez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Rakesh Gupta/Dr.
Meenu Gupta Medical P.C. The case is styled as Diana Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Dr. Rakesh Gupta/Dr. Meenu Gupta Medical P.C., Rakesh
Kumar Gupta, Meenu Gupta, Case No. 1:24-cv-08343 (N.D. Okla., Dec.
4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Dr. Rakesh Gupta, MD is a board certified internist in Forest
Hills, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 west 24th Street, Ste 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 465-1124
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Daly Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01475-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2024), is brought seeking
to challenge Defendants' false and deceptive practices in the
marketing and sale of a number of their Dunkin' Refresher Products,
which are marketed as fruit-based beverages available for sale at
Dunkin's brick-and-mortar locations.
The Defendants have marketed the Products with the name of specific
fruits, representing to their consumers that the Products, which
are marketed as fruit-based beverages, contain those advertised
fruits. At a minimum, the Products include the following: Mango
Pineapple Refresher; Strawberry Dragonfruit Refresher; Peach
Passionfruit Refresher; Blueberry Pomegranate; Apple Cranberry
Refresher; Raspberry Watermelon Refresher; and Mixed Berry Beats
Dunkin' Refresher. (together, the "Products").
Despite their names, and unbeknownst to consumers, the Mango
Pineapple Refresher contains no mango and no pineapple, the
Strawberry Dragonfruit Refresher contains no strawberry and no
dragonfruit, the Peach Passionfruit Refresher contains no peach and
no passionfruit, the Blueberry Pomegranate Refresher contains no
blueberry and no pomegranate, the Apple Cranberry Refresher
contains no apple and no cranberry, and the Mixed Berry Beats
Dunkin' Refresher contains no berries. Further, all of the Products
are predominantly made with green tea, water and sugar.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products and paid a
premium price based upon their reliance on Defendants' naming of
the Products. Had Plaintiff and other consumers been aware that the
Products are missing the named fruits, they would not have
purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for
them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by
Defendants' deceptive business practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Mango Pineapple and Strawberry
Dragonfruit Refreshers at Dunkin's locations in Endicott, New
York.
Dunkin' operates one of the United States' largest franchise
chains, which sells donuts and various beverages including the
Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 593-9095
Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Katherine Phillips, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Phone: (310) 751-5948
Email: jnassir@treehouselaw.com
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. GARCEAU, v.
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No.
6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Parties asks the Court to
enter an order extending class certification deadlines by
approximately 60 days as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for completing class Jan. 17, 2025 Mar. 18,
2025
certification discovery:
Deadline for Motion for Class Feb. 17, 2025 April 18,
2025
Certification:
Deadline for Response to Motion March 20, 2025 May 19, 2025
for Class Certification:
Deadline for Reply to Response April 3, 2025 June 2,
2025
to Motion for Class Certification:
Embry–Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and
aerospace programs.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sFywoD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
Suite 300
1110 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
Jason H. Gould, Esq.
Allison O. Kahn, Esq.
Irma Reboso Solares, Esq.
Sean W. Hughes, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
Suite 400 West
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 965-8100
Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com
jgould@carltonfields.com
akahn@carltonfields.com
isolares@carltonfields.com
shughes@carltonfields.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hines' Proposed Class Notice Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE A. HINES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701-RPK-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Marutollo entered an order
approving in part and denying in part Plaintiff's proposed class
notice.
The Plaintiff shall file the amended class notice within 7 days of
the Court's order.
Further, the Court approves of Plaintiff's following notice plan,
as modified:
1. Following the filing of the amended class notice, the
Plaintiff
shall retain the services of a competent and experienced
class
action notice administrator to prepare and publish a notice
website that will include information found in the class
notice
as well as relevant litigation documents such as the parties'
pleadings and the Court's Order concerning class
certification.
2. Defendant shall—within 8 weeks of the adopted order—
prepare a
list of those individuals who meet the definitions of the New
York Subclass and the Capital One Subclass, as set forth in
Judge Reyes's Report and Recommendation of July 16, 2022, and
as
amended by this Court's Order of Oct. 11, 2024 setting a
class
period end date of Sept. 10, 2024. To the extent the
following
items of information are available to Defendant, the list
shall
include each Subclass member's full name, last known mailing
address, and email address.
3. Within 30 days of receiving the class list from Defendant,
the
notice administrator shall send the approved class notice by
email to the members of each subclass when possible and
otherwise by United States mail when Defendant does not
possess
an email address for a subclass member and when emails sent
are
returned undeliverable.
4. Members of the each of the subclasses shall have 30 days from
the date on which the notice administrator sends notice in
which
to request exclusion from this case by submitting an opt-out
request to the notice administrator. The specific deadline
for
exclusion requests will be included in the final class
notice.
Additionally, as discussed above, Defendant's request for a
stay
is denied. The parties shall file a joint status report by
Dec.
20, 2024.
The Plaintiff Hines brings this class action against the Defendant,
seeking monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the New
York Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCRA").
Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FCd9V9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRANKCRUM INC: Springer Sues Over Intentional Work Interference
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARETT SPRINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKCRUM, INC., FRANK WINSTON CRUM
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 24-005286-CI (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., December 4, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for intentional interference and
retaliation under Florida's Workers' Compensation law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this complaint, on
behalf of similarly situated employees who have sought and obtained
benefits under Florida's workers' compensation law, against the
Defendants for alleged interference with their right to work. The
Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff's and Class members'
subsequent job opportunities by threatening their new employer that
if the company hired them, they would terminate their business
relationship with the Plaintiff's new employer and the company's
workers compensation insurance coverage, says the suit.
Frankcrum, Inc. is a business solutions firm doing business in
Florida.
Frank Winston Crum Insurance Company is an insurance agency in
Clearwater, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Fraley, Esq.
THE FRALEY FIRM, P.A.
412 East Madison Street, Suite 813
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-8300
Email: rfraley@fraleylawfirm.com
GANNETT CO: Deddeh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gannett Co., Inc. The
case is styled as John Deddeh, individually and on behalf of class
of similarly situated individuals v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-08743 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
Gannett Co., Inc. -- https://www.gannett.com/ -- operates as a
media and marketing solutions company in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milstead Due Dec. 12, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MILSTEAD, et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06338-JST (N.D. cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending Scheduling
Order Deadlines:
Event Date
Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Dec. 12, 2025
class certification expert disclosures due:
Class certification opposition and Defendants' Feb. 10, 2026
class certification expert disclosures due:
Class certification expert discovery cut-off: Mar. 30, 2025
Class certification reply due: Apr. 13, 2026
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XIMp3V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
Adam Tamburelli, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
atamburelli@baronbudd.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Renee D. Smith, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.w. Washington, DC 20004
GIFTROCKET INC: GBL Must Identify Alleged Damages, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gracie Baked LLC, et al.,
v. GiftRocket, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04019 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July
08, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order as
follows:
-- In addition, the Court has an ongoing duty to ensure that
standing
exists, especially in a case in which Plaintiffs hope to
achieve
class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs must identify the alleged damages resulting from
the alleged reputational harm and customer diversion in their
responses to the interrogatories and Rule 26 supplements.
-- The Court has considered the arguments raised by Plaintiffs but
finds them insufficient grounds upon which to excuse
Plaintiffs'
failure to supplement their Rule 26 disclosures or respond to
interrogatories as to damages.
-- Plaintiffs must be aware of their own damages theory at this
stage
of litigation, and their profits and losses in connection with
their own businesses should be known to Plaintiffs.
-- The Defendants' business operations information does not drive
Plaintiffs' compensatory damages calculation as to Plaintiffs'
harm, unless, of course, they are limiting their theory to
disgorgement.
The suit alleges violation of Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act).
GiftRocket specializes in providing online gift cards and e-gift
certificates across various industries.[CC]
GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 12, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEA MOQUETE, v. GNC
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order setting discovery and class
certification briefing schedule:
Event Deadline
Deadline to Join Additional Parties: Jan. 31, 2025
Deadline for Expert Witnesses/Reports: Jun. 2, 2025
Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Rebuttal: Jul. 7, 2025
Deadline for Discovery Relating to Class Sept. 1, 2025
Certification:
Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 12,
2025
Deadline to File Opposition for Class Oct. 14, 2025
Certification:
Deadline to File Reply for Class Certification: Oct. 29,
2025
The parties to meet and confer and submit proposals for any
supplemental discovery, dispositive motions and trial 30 days after
the Court's ruling on class certification
Dated this 5th day of December, 2024.
GNC Holdings is an American multinational retail and nutritional
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HjNsWM at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOLDEN STATE FC: Bid to Reopen Discovery in Trevino Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN TREVINO, et al., v.
GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' request to reopen
discovery.
Given the procedural posture of this action, it is further ordered
that Amazon shall file a status report no later than Dec. 20, 2024,
providing an update on the final approval hearing and status of the
Kentucky action: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case
No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky.).
To the extent Amazon has agreed to provide declarations confirming
various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue as stated in
its informal discovery dispute letter, Plaintiffs' request is
granted.
Within 30 days of the date of this order, Amazon shall provide
relevant declarations that it has agreed to provide, and which
confirm various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue. These
include the following:
(1) Amazon ceased conducting security screening in California
on
April 1, 2020, and ceased its rounding practice on Sept.
30,
2020; and
(2) Amazon revised its electronic meal period waiver on Nov.
12,
2018. The Court does not compel any such declaration for
which
Amazon has not agreed.
Absent any indication that Amazon failed to produce documents as
they are kept in the usual course of business, Plaintiffs' request
is denied.
On May 26, 2023, following a lengthy procedural history not
recounted here, the undersigned issued amended findings and
recommendations that recommended granting in part and denying in
part the motion for class certification.
Golden State is a China-based manufacturer specializing in the
production of custom acrylic displays and boxes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XkRlnT at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE INC: Bid for Clarification of Class Definition Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation,
Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson
Freeman entered an order denying the administrative motion for
clarification of class definition.
The Court agrees that Google's present motion is a belated effort
to alter and narrow a class definition that has been undisputed and
in active use by the Parties for twenty-three months.
The Court does believe that a plain reading of the Purchaser Class
definition, as currently drafted, would appear to apply only to
those individuals who purchased their devices directly from Google,
and that therefore Plaintiffs' drafted definition would benefit
from a slight revision for clarity.
Purchaser Class:
All Users who purchased a Google-Made Device, where
"Google-Made
Devices" are Google Assistant Enabled Devices manufactured and
sold by Google either directly or through third-party
retailers."
This dispute arises out of an order certifying a class of
Plaintiffs. This Court issued its Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on
December 16, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zmokto at no extra
charge.[CC]
GUARD FORCE: Carey Conditional Class Certification Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY T. CAREY, v. GUARD
FORCE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-21942-JB (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Becerra entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for notice and conditional
certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file an amended proposed Notice consistent
with this Order no later than Dec. 9, 2024.
-- The Defendant shall file any objection to the amended proposed
Notice no later than Dec. 17, 2024
-- The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the
standard
for conditional certification, but agrees that Plaintiff’s
proposed Notice must be modified.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify the following
class:
"All Security Guards who worked for [Defendant], at any time
from
three years prior to the date of the Court's Order granting
notice
to the present, who worked more than 40 hours in one or more
workweeks, and who earned H&W pay which [Defendant] did not
include in the calculation of their regular rate of pay and
resulting overtime rate of pay."
The case seeks for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a "non-exempt hourly
paid" security guard from April 15, 2020, through the present.
Guard Force offers armed and unarmed physical security guard.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fyi6FS at no extra
charge.[CC]
HUGO BOSS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hugo Boss Retail, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-04358-JWB-DLM
(D. Minn., Dec. 3, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.hugoboss.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website")
is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, pants, shirts, jackets, tracksuits, belts,
scarves, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
HYDRO EXTRUSION: Creasey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tristan Creasey, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. HYDRO EXTRUSION USA, LLC, Case No. 241100901
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-06458.
The Plaintiff seeks overtime compensation, at one-and-one-half
times Plaintiff's regular rate, for all hours worked over 40 per
week pursuant to Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen M. Scannell, Esq.
R. Nelson Williams, Esq.
Laurie Belony, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
Phone: (314) 259-2000
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
Email: stephen.scannell@bclplaw.com
nelson.williams@bclplaw.com
laurie.belony@bclplaw.com
JT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS: Ellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JT Logistics
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Donald Wayne
Ellington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JT Logistics Solutions, LLC, Atlantic Solutions Group
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0016734 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Dec. 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
JT Logistics -- https://jtlogistics.com/ -- provides transportation
and comprehensive warehouse services to clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
KALAMATA LLC: Dardompre Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duygu Dardompre, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KALAMATA LLC d/b/a KALAMATA MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE, and
ILYAS ORTATEPE, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-24718-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 3, 2024), is brought against Defendants for their
failure to pay restaurant front-of-the-house employees ("FOH
Employees") proper wages in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendants have violated the tip provisions of the FLSA by
retaining a percentage of tips earned by FOH Employees each shift
they work, notwithstanding the March 23, 2018, amendment to the
FLSA which expressly prohibits an employer from retaining any
portion of tips earned by an employee regardless of whether the
employer takes a tip credit. As a result, Plaintiff, and similarly
situated FOH Employees have been deprived of tips and federal
minimum wages during various workweeks within the statute of
limitations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Restaurant Server at
the Kalamata Mediterranean Cuisine restaurant.
The Defendants owned, operated, and controlled the Kalamata
Mediterranean Cuisine Restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy A. Hernandez, Esq.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 597-2688
Email: Rhernandez@HernandezLawPllc.com
MATHESON TRI-GAS: Smelser Suit Seeks Operators' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SMELSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC. and WESTERN
INTERNATIONAL GAS & CYLINDERS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-04743 (S.D. Tex., December 4, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants first as a production
technician since approximately May 2018 and then as a control room
operator from May 2019, located at 7173 East Hwy. 159, Bellville,
Texas.
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. is an owner and operator of multiple
chemical gas companies with numerous locations throughout Texas and
the United States.
Western International Gas & Cylinders, Inc. is a supplier of
acetylene, propylene, high-pressure gases, cylinders, valves, and
related services, doing business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
MATTEL INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wicked Doll Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, writing for AdWeek, reports that it's not all fun and
games for toy manufacturer Mattel, which was hit with a
class-action lawsuit Tuesday, December 3, over a high-profile
packaging error on dolls depicting characters in Universal
Pictures' Wicked.
Law firm Poulin Willey Anastopoulo filed the suit in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of South
Carolina resident Holly Ricketson, who claimed that she purchased a
Wicked doll for her minor daughter around Nov. 11, and her daughter
used an iPhone to access the URL on the packaging, which
erroneously led to a pornography website instead of the official
site for the film.
"Wicked.com pasted scenes of pornographic advertisements across her
phone screen," the lawsuit reads. "These scenes were hardcore,
full-on nude pornographic images depicting actual intercourse . . .
Plaintiff's minor daughter immediately showed her mother the
photographs, and both were horrified by what they saw."
The suit also noted that Mattel did not offer refunds to people who
bought the dolls with the problematic packaging.
The error was noticed during the weekend of Nov. 9 and 10, and
Mattel said in a statement at the time, "We deeply regret this
unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this.
Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not
appropriate for children."
The company suggested that parents discard the packaging or cover
up the link.
The suit seeks "compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in
amounts to be determined by the court and/or jury," as well as
payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses.
Wicked, which opened in theaters Nov. 22, has been a marketing
collaboration gold mine for Universal Pictures, with Mattel joined
by over 400 brands including Béis, Betty Crocker, Crocs, Stanley,
Starbucks, and Target.
The film is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians) and stars
Ariana Grande as Glinda and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba. [GN]
MERCK SHARP: Escobedo Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sarah Escobedo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, Case No.
24STCV28500 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on Dec. 3, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-10394.
The Complaint asserts one cause of action against Merck for
violation of California Penal Code. The Complaint alleges that
Merck operates www.merck.com (the "Website"), the Website contains
a search bar feature, and the search bar feature allegedly
transmits search terms to "third-party advertising entities" in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric J. Bakewell, Esq.
Emily Horak, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 855-3000
Facsimile: (310) 855-3099
Email: EBakewell@willkie.com
EHorak@willkie.com
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, JOHNNIE
PARKS, CASEY JONES, and ARNULFO VALLEJO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. and NFI
INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Jan. 6, 2024, for
an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
National Freight provides the freight shipping services, delivering
FTL, LTL, Intermodal shipping services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YLSHOB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
ssb@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Order Entered in UPOA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00218-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein
entered a class certification order as follows:
-- With regard to Docket Nos. 162 and 163, the Defendants are
correct
that the Court never "instructed" defendants to "confirm
whether
they are refusing to produce a 30(b)(6) witness," as plaintiffs
assert.
Instead, the Court instructed plaintiffs that they could either
work cooperatively to arrange for a 30(b)(6) deposition or seek
a
preclusive sanction under Rule 37 for any past failures, with
no
further opportunity to obtain 30(b)(6) testimony.
-- Defendants are incorrect, however, in asserting that the Court
required plaintiffs to serve a new Rule 30(b)(6) notice. That
being said, the Court certainly believes it would be far more
efficient if plaintiffs narrowed their topics given the breadth
of
the last notice. But if plaintiffs choose not to do so, the
Court
will not intervene, as the real work of the parties must occur
at
the Court-ordered meet-and-confer.
-- By Dec. 5, 2024, the plaintiffs should either serve a revised
and
narrowed notice (or notices, inasmuch as it became clear at the
conference that plaintiffs served notices involving both the
Department of Probation and other agencies), or re-serve the
existing notices.
-- The parties shall immediately schedule a meet and confer to
take
place on or before December 12, 2024. The parties should allow
a
time slot of at least 2 hours for this conference.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcnEGh at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in JSM Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.S.M., et al., v. NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00705-EK-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee
entered a class certification order as follows:
-- The Court preliminarily approves the proposed Settlement as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement as being sufficiently fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and finds that it is the
result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced
attorneys
familiar with the legal and factual issues of this case.
-- The Court approves the form and content of the Class Settlement
Notice as follows:
a. The Court finds that the proposed Class Settlement Notice,
attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Danielle
Tarantolo,
will fairly and accurately inform potential Class Members of
all material elements of the Settlement Agreement and the
right
to object to the Settlement.
b. The Court finds that the plan described below to distribute
the
Class Settlement Notice provides appropriate notice to the
Class and complies with the requirements set forth under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and any other applicable
law.
-- A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing will be held on April 11,
2025 at 10:00 a.m.
-- Papers in support of a motion for entry of a Final Approval
Order shall be filed with the Court on or before March 14, 2025.
New York City Department of Education manages the city's public
school system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkfNjj at no extra
charge.[CC]
PARTS AUTHORITY: Conditional Collective Cert Due March 14, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jermaine Cranmore, v.
Parts Authority, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05842-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered a case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
In addition to the schedule below, the deadline for a motion for
conditional collective action certification is March 14, 2025, and
the deadline for a motion for class certification is May 16, 2025.
The parties have until Dec. 17, 2024, to report back to the Court
on an agreement to toll the statute of limitations for members of
the collective on the FLSA claims, with corresponding modifications
to the certification motions.
This Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order is submitted
by the parties in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(f)(3):
1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings
before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions
and
trial.
2. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be
filed
no later than Jan. 3, 2025.
3. All fact discovery is to be completed no later than May 2,
2025.
4. All discovery shall be completed no later than May 2, 2025,
without prejudice to extension for good cause, including with
respect to discovery requests that wouldn't have been
permissible or relevant to rulings on the motions for
conditional or class certification.
Parts Authority operates as a distributor of automotive and truck
parts to the aftermarket auto parts industry in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bZ48Uo at no extra
charge.[CC]
PORTS OF SEATTLE: Bid to Dismiss Emissions Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
SeaTac News reports that a federal judge in the last week of
November denied motions to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging
significant harm from aircraft emissions at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (SEA), allowing the case to proceed.
As we previously reported, the lawsuit, filed in 2022 on behalf of
residents living within a five-mile radius of the airport, accuses
the Port of Seattle, Alaska Airlines, and Delta Air Lines of
negligence, battery, trespass, and public nuisance.
U.S. District Court Judge Jamal White denied motions by the
defendants seeking to dismiss the case, rejecting arguments that
the claims are preempted by federal law and lack jurisdiction. The
court's Nov. 25 decision marks a significant step forward for
plaintiffs seeking accountability for what they describe as a
"Contamination Zone" caused by aircraft pollution.
"As we first predicted in The Briefing Project, the Port of Seattle
needed a big shark -- a lawsuit -- to bite it in the ass," local
activist Steve Edmiston said in a statement referencing the famous
scene from "Jaws" in which the mayor refuses to close the beaches.
"And that shark is getting awfully close now. There has never been
a better time for communities to push back against the Port of
Seattle for harmful airport expansion. Please comment on the
SAMP!"
Comments on the SAMP may be submitted electronically to
SAMP@portseattle.org or on the project website, and must be
received by Dec. 13, 2024.
Plaintiffs Detail Widespread Harms
Residents of the alleged contamination zone claim the defendants'
actions have led to high levels of toxins in the area, including
arsenic, lead, and magnesium, resulting in property damage and
severe health risks. According to the complaint, these risks
include heightened rates of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD), heart disease, and cancer.
Plaintiffs also cited reports from the University of Washington and
King County Public Health highlighting the higher prevalence of
premature births, low birth weights, and shortened life expectancy
among residents near the airport. The suit further alleges over 100
"excess deaths" annually due to exposure to pollutants.
Environmental and Social Injustice
The complaint underscores the disproportionate impact on low-income
and minority communities.
"Defendants' behavior would not be tolerated if the affected
communities were wealthy and politically powerful, such as Mercer
Island or Medina," plaintiffs argue. More than 30% of residents in
the contamination zone live below 200% of the federal poverty
level, according to the filing.
Defendants Deny Responsibility
The Port of Seattle and airline defendants argue that federal
regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Federal Aviation
Administration rules, preempt the claims. They maintain that
compliance with these regulations shields them from liability and
that plaintiffs' claims impermissibly challenge federal aviation
standards.
Judge White rejected these arguments at this stage, finding that
plaintiffs' state-law claims are distinct and not inherently
preempted by federal statutes. The court also noted that
determining whether federal law preempts the claims will require a
detailed factual analysis.
Years of Advocacy Culminate in Legal Action
Advocacy groups have long warned of the health and environmental
impacts of Sea-Tac's operations. In 2018, a local group published a
two-minute briefing to the Port of Seattle (video below),
highlighting the public health evidence and urging action to
mitigate aviation-related harm. That same group had predicted
lawsuits if the Port failed to act.
"The lawsuits have arrived," said one advocate, "and the Port now
faces accountability for years of inaction."
Implications and Next Steps
This case, potentially encompassing thousands of affected
residents, could result in significant damages and compel the Port
and airlines to adopt stricter environmental practices. Meanwhile,
community leaders are urging residents to comment on the Port's
Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP), which outlines future
airport expansion.
The lawsuit's outcome could set a precedent for communities
nationwide grappling with the environmental and health impacts of
major airports. [GN]
RING CONCIERGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Agostini Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RING CONCIERGE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09259 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.ringconcierge.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts,
unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on
graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Ring Concierge LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for March 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR. Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC. CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN NOVEMBER 10,
2021, AND MARCH 10, 2022, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 23 and by Order of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, that the
above-captioned action ("Action") against Rivian Automotive, Inc.
("Rivian"), certain of Rivian's executive officers and directors,
and the underwriters that facilitated the offer and sale of Rivian
Class A common stock through the company's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") on November 10, 2021 (collectively, "Defendants"), has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the following Classes
(also referred to herein as "Class"):
For 1934 Act Claims: All persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between November 11,
2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The
Class excludes those who purchased Rivian Class A common stock at
the fixed IPO price.
For 1933 Act Claims: All persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between November 10,
2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
The Court has appointed Sjunde AP-Fonden and James Stephen Muhl as
Class Representatives and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as
Class Counsel. The Action has not been adjudicated or settled. This
notice is not an admission by Defendants or an expression of any
opinion by the Court as to the merits of the Action, or a finding
by the Court that the claims asserted by Class Representatives in
the Action are valid. This notice is not a settlement notice and is
intended only to inform members of the Class that the Action is
currently in progress.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE LAWSUIT. This notice provides only a summary of the information
contained in the detailed, long-form Notice of Pendency of Class
Action ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice from the
website for the Action, www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
contacting the Administrator:
Crews v. Rivian Automotive Securities Litigation
c/o Verita Global, LLC
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170
If you are a Class member, you should receive a Postcard Notice
regarding the Action by mail. If you are a Class member and you do
not receive a Postcard Notice by mail, please send your name and
address to the Administrator so that you will receive any future
notices disseminated in connection with the Action.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, and comments may be
made to Class Counsel:
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
-or-
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
info@ktmc.com
www.ktmc.com
If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Rivian Class A common stock. You will automatically be included
in the Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in the
Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable to you. If
you are a Class member and do not wish to remain a member of the
Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself.
If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion by mail or email by no later than March 4, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Your
request for exclusion must be signed. If you request exclusion via
email, an e-signature is acceptable. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4), the
Court has discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request
exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement
in the Action.
Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
or by visiting the website www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 Both Classes exclude Defendants and their families, the officers,
directors, and affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant times,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities
of Symbotic Inc. (NASDAQ: SYM) between February 8, 2024 and
November 26, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Symbotic investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Symbotic class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31796 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Symbotic improperly accelerated revenue
recognition in its 2024 financial statements; and (2) as a result,
defendants' statements about Symbotic’s business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
3, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31796 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company
at the time. Rosen Law Firm’s attorneys are ranked and recognized
by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Comply With COPPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that video hosting service TikTok has been accused
in a New Jersey class action of violating the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act and failing to comply with a 2019 court
order from an earlier lawsuit by the federal government.
Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss filed the suit on behalf of a
nationwide class and a New Jersey subclass of people under 13 when
they used TikTok, from whom the company allegedly collected
personal information without obtaining parental consent.
The New Jersey suit follows another, filed by the Department of
Justice Aug. 2 in the Central District of California, which claims
TikTok fails to comply with COPPA and also fails to comply with the
2019 court order that ended an earlier suit over the privacy of
minors.
O'Melveny & Myers' Daniel Petrocelli and Stephen McIntyre have
entered appearances for TikTok in the California case.
In the New Jersey case, TikTok is accused of collecting personally
identifiable information of millions of minor children without
their parents' consent.
The alleged datasets include name, age, profile image, password,
email, phone number, address, approximate location, social media
account information, phone and social media contacts, messages
exchanged with other TikTok users, and payment card numbers.
The suit alleges TikTok collects and sells access to this personal
data without the minors' or their parents' notice, knowledge or
consent.
"TikTok has built a multibillion-dollar business by systematically
violating the privacy rights of millions of children across
America," Seeger said in a statement. "Despite a previous court
order and clear legal obligations under the Children's Online
Privacy Protection [Act], the company continues to knowingly
collect and monetize kids' personal information without consent
from their parents. We intend to hold TikTok accountable and demand
meaningful changes to ensure parents -- not social media companies
-- have control over their children's data."
TikTok did not respond to a request for comment about the latest
suit.
When users create a TikTok account, the site requires them to state
their date of birth. If they are younger than 14, they obtain a
"kids mode" account, but their parents are not notified that they
are using the site, according to the complaint.
But TikTok has allegedly long known that minors misrepresent their
ages to open an account, but despite measures to remove them from
the platform, children are "ubiquitous," the suit claims.
The complaint cited a New York Times article that said 18 million
of TikTok's 49 million users are 14 or younger.
The DOJ's August suit alleges TikTok violates COPPA by knowingly
creating accounts for children and collecting data from those
children without first notifying their parents and obtaining their
consent, failing to honor parents' requests to delete their
children's accounts and information, and failing to delete the
accounts of users it knows are children, according to the Seeger
Weiss complaint.
The sole named plaintiff in the case is Kathleen Lanser of Dumont,
New Jersey, whose child, A.L., created a TikTok account when 12,
the suit states.
TikTok allegedly collected A.L.'s personal information to track
A.L.'s activity and to send targeted advertisements, but Lanser was
never given notice of the arrangement, the suit claims.
In the 2019 agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, TikTok
paid $5.7 million to settle allegations it illegally collected the
names, email addresses, pictures and locations of children younger
than 13.
The agreement also called for TikTok to comply with COPPA by taking
offline all videos made by children younger than 13.
After the agreement was reached, in 2020, a coalition of consumer,
privacy and children's advocacy groups filed a complaint with the
FTC claiming that TikTok did not delete the personal information of
users younger than 13 and in defiance of the consent decree. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: McBride Seeks to Certify Collective
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MCBRIDE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TYSON FOODS, INC.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00117-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying the following collective:
"All Production Supervisors employed by the Defendant in
Missouri since May 10, 2021";
B. Approving Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent to join and
proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
C. Approving the form and content of Exhibit 1;
D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative collective member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such
as Excel, within ten business days after this Court's Order
is
entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days in which collective
members may submit Consents to join this lawsuit as opt-in
plaintiffs;
F. Allowing for a reminder notice to be mailed and emailed 30
days
after the date of initially mailing and emailing the Notice
and
Consent forms;
G. Directing the Defendant to post a copy of the Notice and
Consent
forms at all of Defendant's currently operating jobsites in
Missouri where Production Supervisors work in an area readily
and routinely available for review by such employees; and
H. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and granting
all
other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled, whether
specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiff worked as a salaried Production Supervisor for
Defendant in Missouri.
The Plaintiff brings this suit, individually and on behalf of all
other current and former salaried Production Supervisors in
Missouri who worked for Defendant and are similarly situated, to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z94z2K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
UNITED 1ST: Ownby Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN OWNBY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION, v.
UNITED 1st LENDING, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02190-TPB-CPT (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages related
discovery:
1. Granting the Plaintiff leave to conduct class certification
and
damages related discovery, including third-party discovery as
necessary;
2. Reserving jurisdiction on the issue of damages and to
otherwise
reserve ruling on a final damages determination; and
3. Permitting Plaintiff to seek a default judgment, both as to
the
individual Plaintiff and the putative Class, upon completion
of
class certification and damages discover.
In the instant action, the putative classes consists of members who
were unlawfully targeted by Defendant with unsolicited "robo-call"
advertisements.
Specifically, the putative Class consists of (while reserving the
right to amend the Class definition upon the completion of
discovery):
-- TCPA Robocall Class:
"All persons within the United States who, within the four
years
prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class
certification, received one or more prerecorded voice calls
regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services on their
cellular telephone line."
-- TCPA DNC Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through the date of class certification
(1)
Defendant placed more than one call within any 12-month period;
(2) where the person's telephone number that had been listed on
the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (3)
regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services."
-- FTSA Class:
"All persons in Florida who, since July 1, 2021 through the
date
of class certification, received one or more prerecorded
telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's property, goods,
and/or services on their cellular telephone line."
United 1st is a mortgage broker.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVQp5N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
UNITED NETWORK: Randall Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED
NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on March 27, 2025, for an order granting motion for class
certification:
-- California Class
"Black kidney disease patients registered on the national
kidney
transplant waitlist at California transplant hospitals, from
2000
to the present, that received or would have qualified for a
wait
time adjustment because a lab test shows that with a race-
inclusive calculation, the candidate's eGFR was over 20 mL/min,
but with a race-neutral calculation it would have been 20
mL/min
or less."
Excluded from this class is any person filing an individual,
personal injury action.
-- Cedars Class
"Black kidney disease patients registered on the national
kidney
transplant waitlist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, from 2000
to
the present, that received or would have qualified for a wait
time
adjustment because a lab test shows that with a race-inclusive
calculation, the candidate's eGFR was over 20 mL/min, but with
a
race-neutral calculation it would have been 20 mL/min or
less."
Excluded from this class is any person filing an individual,
personal injury action.
The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing himself as class
representative, and Matthew Venezia of Ellis George LLP as lead
counsel.
United Network is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization that administers the only organ procurement and
transplantation network (OPTN) in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hh75Q9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Venezia, Esq.
George B. A. Laiolo, Esq.
Andrew R. Iglesias, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com
glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com
aiglesias@ellisgeorge.com
- and -
David J. Ko, Esq.
Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dko@kellerrohrback.com
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
UNITED STATES: Cortez Class Cert Response Extended to March 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cortez v. United States of
America, Case No. 2:24-cv-07532 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 29, 2024)
, the Hon. Judge Arlene R. Lindsay entered an order that the time
for Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is extended until March 3, 2025.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Docs Sealed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the application that
the following documents and portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be sealed, as indicated below:
Brief Deposition Description of Bates
Designating
Exhibit Exhibit Document Number Party
Number Number
6 12/21/2021 2U- USC_FAV_ USC
USC Services 000024998
Agreement
8 4/4/2014 USC_FAV_ USC
Second 000024990
Agreement to
2U-USC Services
Agreement
9 USC's Revised USC_FAV_ USC
Responses and 000095912
Objections to
Plaintiffs'
Second Set of
Interrogatories
University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5dORC9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Shilpa Sadhasvisam, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
David McGee, Esq.
Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favel Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Jan. 30, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., will move before the
Honorable George H. Wu for certification of the following classes:
Class:
"All persons who: (1) were enrolled in the online MAT (single
subject ("SS") or multiple subject ("MS")) or the online Ed.D
in
Organizational Change and Leadership ("OCL") at Rossier; (2)
began
classes in a program cohort between August 2017 and January
2022;
and (3) paid or were obligated to pay tuition for classes
associated with the program in which they enrolled."
Online MAT Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who were enrolled in the online MAT (SS or
MS)
at Rossier."
Online OCL Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who were enrolled in the online Ed.D in OCL
at
Rossier."
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1)
Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, Mariah Cummings, and Ahmad
Murtada as class representatives on all claims, and (2) the law
firms of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and National Student Legal Defense
Network as Class Counsel.
University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r7PkRa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Shilpa Sadhasvisam, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
David McGee, Esq.
Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Zarnowski Seeks Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Jan. 30, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., will move before the
Honorable George H. Wu for certification of the following classes:
Class:
"All persons who: (1) were enrolled in the online MAT (single
subject ("SS") or multiple subject ("MS")) or the online Ed.D
in
Organizational Change and Leadership ("OCL") at Rossier; (2)
began
classes in a program cohort between August 2017 and January
2022;
and (3) paid or were obligated to pay tuition for classes
associated with the program in which they enrolled."
Online MAT Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who were enrolled in the online MAT (SS or
MS)
at Rossier."
Online OCL Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who were enrolled in the online Ed.D in OCL
at
Rossier."
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1)
Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, Mariah Cummings, and Ahmad
Murtada as class representatives on all claims, and (2) the law
firms of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and National Student Legal Defense
Network as Class Counsel.
University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WSqJfp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Shilpa Sadhasvisam, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
David McGee, Esq.
Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
US BANCORP: Seeks to Disregard Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sue Ann Adams, et al., v.
US Bancorp, et al., Case No. 0:22-cv-00509-NEB-LIB (D. Minn.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order disregarding the
Plaintiffs' motion for Leave:
-- The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave just six days
before
the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification,
effectively seeking to put before the Court an alternative
method
for determining the Defendants' liability and, as a result, an
alternative composition of the class they seek to certify.
Accordingly, Defendants request an emergency telephonic conference
at the Court's earliest convenience so that the parties can obtain
clarity on next steps, and to avoid further prejudice to
Defendants.
Defendants submit that the Motion for Leave should be swiftly
denied, and Plaintiffs should be required to proceed on Wednesday
with the Motion for Class Certification and associated evidentiary
record that is already before the Court. To the extent the Court is
inclined to entertain the Motion for Leave, Defendants respectfully
request the opportunity to respond to the Motion for Leave within a
reasonable time frame and, if granted, to address the Third
Supplemental Report with additional briefing or discovery, as
necessary. Defendants respectfully request the Court’s prompt
attention to this matter.
The Defendants request an emergency telephonic conference with the
Court in advance of the December 11, 2024, hearing on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, to address Plaintiffs' improper and
highly prejudicial Motion for Leave to File a Third Supplemental
Report of Ian H. Altman filed last night. The Defendants' counsel
will make themselves available at the Court's earliest convenience.
U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pyI0zP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Melissa D. Hill, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6318
E-mail: melissa.hill@morganlewis.com
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Berger, Varnell Appointed as Class Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER FORD,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
that:
1. The Plaintiffs Ford and Beard's motion for the appointment of
interim lead counsel, is granted and Berger Montague PC and
Varnell & Warwick are appointed as Interim Lead Class Counsel
in
this consolidated action.
2. Counsel for Patterson and Otters may continue with any
discovery
specific to plaintiffs Patterson and Otters, after
consultation
with interim class counsel.
3. If counsel for Patterson and Otters does not join in the
motion
for class certification filed by interim class counsel,
counsel
may seek leave of court to file an appropriate brief, motion,
or
evidence. Any such motion seeking leave of court must be
filed
within seven calendar days of the motion for class
certification.
4. Interim class counsel shall consider and promptly respond to
cooperative suggestions from counsel for Patterson and Otters
and shall keep counsel for Patterson and Otters apprised of
developments.
Veterans Guardian is a pre-filing consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHNEo7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Sept. 5, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cynthia Rufe entered an amended scheduling order:
1. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before Apr. 4, 2025.
2. Plaintiff's expert reports, if any, shall be served on
Defendant
on or before May 6, 2025.
3. Defendant's responsive reports, if any, shall be completed
and
served on Plaintiff on or before June 6, 2025.
4. All depositions of expert witnesses shall be taken on or
before
Aug. 5, 2025.
5. All motions for class certification, summary judgment, or the
exclusion of experts shall be filed on or before Sept. 5,
2025.
Judge Rufe's Policies and Procedures for Summary Judgment
will
not apply in this case.
Villanova University is a private Catholic research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9aDLx at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISION SERVICE: Discloses Users' Info to 3rd Parties, Tendick Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNA TENDICK and PETER HAHN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISION SERVICE PLAN,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12456 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, and for conversion.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed with third
parties, Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC, users' private
information without their consent. When the Defendant intentionally
and surreptitiously embedded the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics on
its website and related subpages, it shared with Meta and Google
every patient's interaction with its website and related subpages
without the Plaintiffs' or its other users' knowledge or consent.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit.
Vision Service Plan is a health insurance company based in Rancho
Cordova, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Zoran Tasic, Esq.
Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY&ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
zt@wbe-llp.com
gfl@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Brett Cebulash, Esq.
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Joshua Hall, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 William St., Suite 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
Email: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
klandau@tcllaw.com
jhall@tcllaw.com
WALMART INC: Palazzi Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY PALAZZI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. MRS-L-2099-24,
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 5, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-10932 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings complaint against the Defendant on behalf of
all other similarly situated consumers for monetary losses from the
lost funds on their Walmart Gift cards.
Walmart Inc. is a retail company headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Francis X. Nolan, IV, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 389-5000
Email: franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Stacey M. Mohr, Esq.
Valerie S. Sanders, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
999 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 853-8000
Email: staceymohr@eversheds-sutherland.com
valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation has exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business previously owned by one of its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis ("CWP"), allegedly resulting from the use of
respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed
and/or labeled. At no time did this respiratory product line
represent a significant portion of the respirator market.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aFpVa5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: De Beers PLC Faces Major Asbestos Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Law.com, reports that Dallas-based
Dean Omar Branham Shirley filed a suit with the State Court in
Columbia, South Carolina, for more than 150 plaintiffs seeking
asbestos disease-related damages against De Beers PLC and its
affiliated companies.
The complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, County of
Richland for the Fifth Judicial District names plaintiffs based in
South Africa, the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Jersey,
France, Switzerland, as well as in several states in the United
States.
The 91-page complaint, styled Augustus A. Adams et al v. Cape PLC
et al, was filed in South Carolina because a Cape PLC is the
U.S.-based successor in interest to Cape Industries Ltd.—a United
Kingdom-based company and De Beers project formed in 1891—and its
subsidiaries and global affiliates, according to the complaint.
"Cape and its related entities, by its own admission, sold more
than 95% of the type of asbestos commonly used in industry and on
U.S. Navy ships for decades. That asbestos is responsible for
untold death and despair among the workers of South Carolina and
the nation," said Trey Branham, partner at Dean Omar Branham
Shirley, who along with co-counsel Theile McVey of Kassel McVey
represents the plaintiffs.
Cape PLC was acquired by Altrad Group, a French company, in 2018.
Several Altrad entities are also named defendants.
Altrad and De Beers corporate offices were contacted to request
comment, but had not responded by the publishing deadline.
Cape had a monopoly on amosite, a lucrative form of asbestos that
was "an ingredient in the most popular and dominant asbestos
products in the market, which were used in virtually every states,
including products used in South Carolina," the complaint states,
adding, "The volume of Cape's asbestos supply to the United States
was breathtaking."
The complaint alleges Cape led efforts in the U.S. to hide from
consumers and its own employees the risks it knew existed. When
asbestos-related lawsuits began surfaced in the 1970s, Cape took
measures to shield itself by creating new entities and then fleeing
the U.S.
"It is sadly unsurprising that Cape, acting with various other
foreign entities, concocted this scheme, because Cape boldly
admitted that it had no 'moral responsibility' to the people
injured or killed," the complaint alleges. "Executing on that
scheme, Cape allowed default judgments against it in asbestos
lawsuits across the United States, and simply absconded, leaving no
assets for recovery."
The complaint claims the De Beers companies, "controlled by the
powerful Oppenheimer family of Jahannesburg," have so far avoided
consequences by allegedly:
* Failing to follow corporate formalities among affiliated
entities;
* Leveraging common ownership and control of entities to
effectively dominate the South African economy and global market
for certain forms of asbestos;
* Creating a byzantine web of entities with the deliberate purpose
of avoiding public scrutiny and escaping liabilities;
Siphoning funds from entities to maximize financial return to
Cape's overseas owners, eliminate liabilities, escape
responsibility by neutralizing the risk of asset attachment by tort
creditors;
* Destroying corporate records and publicly misrepresenting the
nature of Cape's business.
"This case is about finally bringing this company to the forefront
for the harm they've caused," said Ms. McVey, managing partner of
Kassel McVey. "We intend to hold these bad actors to account for
the damage they have inflicted on so many lives."
Causes of action include negligence and negligence per se; product
liability—strict, vicarious, and by breach of implied
warranties—fraudulent misrepresentation; loss of consortium; and
violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Some plaintiffs also included a wrongful-death cause of action.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***